In the short time I've had my DSLR, I've not had a problem finding a star bright enough for LiveView. If it's visible at 1x it's visible at 10x.
Point and shoot cameras use LiveView as standard. I didn't know some DSLR's don't have it. I reckon the LiveView on my point and shoot is more sensitive to low light than the one on my DSLR, but you can't zoom in on it like the DSLR.
I use the 450D, it has all you need apart from video capture.
It is supposed to be one of the better models in dealing with noise although I don't know how they hold up against the newer models.
One thing to note no matter which model you get is if you plan on using a LP filter with it then finding a bright star becomes much more difficult, it helps if Venus is out type of brightness. And the focus point has changed when using the LP filter, take note and maybe mark down where the focus is set to save future focus issues.
That low pass filter you mention. Is that what I would use in lieu of modding the camera? I think the 550D I'm looking at is just a new model of yours Jarrod. I think that may be the one i want especially if I want to keep the price down. And after seeing what Swannies 400D and Paula's 1100D can do,seems ok to me.
Just to clarify...
The newer Canon's >450D are fitted with two internal filters. A colour correction filter (close to the chip) and an Anti-alias/dust filter at the front.
Removing the Colour correction filter enhances the response to Ha.
The anti-alias filter is also a UV-IR cut filter.
Hope this helps.
I think JB is talking about a light pollution filter.
Yes I meant a Light Pollution filter, sorry I should of probably been a bit more specific but if you are in a urban situation it's a purchase that you may end up considering and they do work quite well.
Basically what I have is one of these type of filters for light pollution... http://www.astronomik.com/en/clip-filter-system.html
I suppose there is no real need to over complicate things as you will know if you need one or not fairly quickly it's just focussing was being mentioned and this is something that may need to be considered but probably not at this point.
I think the 550D would be a good purchase, I have only used my 450 and 20D so can't exactly comment on other models but it's a decent camera. This link has a little bit more info on the two models as a comparison... http://ghonis2.ho8.com/450Dto550Dcom...omparison.html
Simple get a digi 4 1100D if your broke or 550/600 if your got the cash, then a 650 digi 5, after that i would head for a 5d mark II ect, in my dreams. I would not bother with a POS, outdated, flogged out 20D/40D, its old tech loaded with heaps noise, some of these people i swear still use type writers. Also note these older camera's have a worse shutter life and a pron to death earlier then there new couter parts. Use google and learn for your self, theres to many keyboard cowboys in this thread.
These old camera's maybe great over base level modern cameras for terrestrial work where focus points count and features, but suck hard against noise, lifespan, mp, sensor spec ect of base level modern cameras. I swear you people will be telling people to buy a apple IIe next because its better built then a modern desktop hahaha
The images of M45 and M42, out of the whole lot, are ones that are most affected by noise. The Orion one in particular was shot on a summer's night that was 26 degrees at midnight.
I will reiterate that a spectrum-enhanced 40D is a magnificent system for astrophotography (for someone not able to afford the latest tech, or isn't after a cooled CCD).
Both these images were taken with a Canon 20D. One modified, the other plain vanilla.
The one from the unmodded camera was short listed for last years Royal Observatory Greenwich Astronomy Photographer of the Year award.
When the weather is too warm to use the Canon 550D, I can always count on the 20d for relatively noise free images.
It's a great camera, very robust and I expect to get years more use out of it.
As one of the resident 60Da owners MrB, how is that coming along? Happy with it? Where do you place the noise on that compared to the others discussed here?
Sod it ,I'm going with the 550D. After much thinking and reading (thanks for those cool links Paula) At the moment money talks. And I figure the 550 is basically canons old 7D and at 18 mpixel cant be too bad for a first camera. If I get the bug and have to upgrade in a year or two so be it. It's been a riveting thread and helped me heaps so thanks all. I have to say also I cant get over the quality of all the photos you've linked. If I get half way there i'll be rapped. Just a couple things more (for now) The lenses that you get with the camera , I'd imagine wouldn't be top quality. Is that reflected in the fact they seem to have aperture of 3.5 - 5.6. in the 18-55mm lense? Not as low as say 2.8, or does it not matter. Thanks again.
I replaced my 18-55mm lens (which isn't good, but isn't bad) with a Tamron 18-200mm lens. For me it's perfect as a day to day lens, the focal range is just awesome. And for just over $200 a bargain. If I go on a walk I need no other lens, except maybe my Tamron 90mm macro if I'm keen.
So if you buy the camera body only and the Tamron for your every day lens, you'll be very happy.
I'm assuming you're on a budget like myself here. If you have the $$ then there is some lovely L glass out there.
Whats the price difference between the 550D and the 600D as the 600D seems to perform better on tests and I don't think there is much diff in the price at all is there?
The 18-55mm lens is fine to start with I've taken some milky way shots with it in polluted skies at 18mm and just step it down a bit - it's a good starter lens.
well, the 600D would be a hundy dearer than the 550D. Whether or not ot has lens or not. Say I can get the body only, would it be better doing that, then spend the money to get a decent zoom,like jjjnettie suggests. Because it never really occured to me that I could just get the body,then sort the lens out. I'm very interested in this. If I'm wanting to eventually target deep sky stuff,multiple exposures, stacking etc. What would the one lens be that you guys would want. Is zoom important? Or is deep sky generally wide field.This is really interesting stuff. Cheers. (edit) jon your suggestion about the 600D had me looking on line and I see one in Auckland cameras that has the 600D body for 900. Thats way cheaper than anywhere else. Retail for the 1100D with lens kit is 1150 odd dollars over here so it's not out of the way. Just gets me back to the lens question again .
and have to upgrade in a year or two so be it. It's been a riveting thread and helped me heaps so thanks all. I have to say also I cant get over the quality of all the photos you've linked. If I get half way there i'll be rapped. Just a couple things more (for now) The lenses that you get with the camera , I'd imagine wouldn't be top quality. Is that reflected in the fact they seem to have aperture of 3.5 - 5.6. in the 18-55mm lense? Not as low as say 2.8, or does it not matter. Thanks again.
And for just over $200 a bargain. 
